1) It seems
we’re back at it again, with silly names that may or may not show us the
essence of a character. Pick one or two of these and show whether the name
seems to fit the character. Point us to specific dialogue or plot developments,
if possible.
or
2) Money
matters in this play. Comment on one of the several discussions of money in the
opening action.
or
3) What
set-ups do you find in the early scenes? What expectations do these set-ups
create for you? In other words, what sorts of structural or plot-like elements
do you find in the early scenes? (We might return to these to find out whether
our expectations are confirmed or not in this play.)
or
4) Discuss another part of today’s reading that
seems to be in need of exploration, elucidation, or comment.
The cast of this play is filled with bullies, with one or two exceptions. The characters' names connote their true selves. The only character thus far who has a normal/ ordinary name is Maria. She appears to vocally oppose the gossip and slander which she is surrounded by. She is the moral compass of the story. Sir Peter also wants no part of the gossiping but these two characters don't really interact with one another. They find themselves in the same place but separate. The rest of the cast is either malicious and has sinister motives or is simply bored.
ReplyDeleteAct 2 scene 2 is filled with a distinctly immature conversation centered around the flaws and faults of everyone whose name comes to mind. Maria is disgusted with the conversation and expresses her distaste to Joseph Surface. He counters by telling her that the intentions of the others are not really malicious. She responds even more indignantly saying that, "then is there conduct more inexcusable, for in my opinion, nothing but depravity of heart tempt them to such practices." Maria identifies the worst character flaw in her critique of her companions. Sir Peter differs in his objections in that he isn't as concerned about reputations being ruined, he just doesn't find gossip particularly entertaining.
The dialogue strikes me as particularly fast paced, sharp and witty. One particular scene that was funny was the spat between Lady Teazle and Sir Peter in Act 2, scene 2. Lady Teazle vocalizes whatever is on her mind, even when vocalizing these things will make her look bad. She hides behind the passive aggressive mask of humor. When Sir Peter reminds his wife that she ought to be grateful to him for rescuing her from a life of menial tasks and monotonous labor, he declares that he has made her a "woman of fashion, of fortune, of ranks..." Her response is shockingly blunt, there is but one thing more you can make me to add to the obligations and that is -" Her husband interjects with, "my widow, I suppose?" Instead of covering up her true feelings she bluntly confirms his suspicions of what she was about to say with a, "hem,hem!"
I found it interesting to note, its difficult to even call these characters deceitful or fake when they are so blunt about their feelings and opinions. The reality is that they are too real. They openly show their true colors and they are completely unapologetic because they don't see themselves at fault. This satire of a dominant societal behavior is as relevant now as it was in the 1770s. As I read the scenes I could (sadly) almost hear people I know saying the words.
Forgot to mention: Gossip is clearly a weapon in the story. Its essential to maintaining your particular spot in society and possible upward mobility. Gossip creates a dynamic of predator and prey. If you aren't hunting, you will be hunted. The gossipers start rumors in order to deflect from themselves.
ReplyDeleteEngland, England, England... It's the 18th century. You'd think they could stop referring to Jews as "the Jew." It stopped being original back in the Middle Ages. Does the play manage to somewhat update the Jewish usurer stereotype? Potentially, though it is doubtful that the epithet "honest Moses" is meant to be anything but ironically derogatory given the play's general attitude toward humanity's propensity for deception. However, his name is Moses, a leading cast member of the Jewish clan known for anything but being a sneaking, lying rogue, facts that remain in one's mind even while the play appropriates the name for the Jew in his natural habitat of the usury business -- or, as a 17th century Englishman might tell you, legalized thievery. Funnily enough, the Jew -- might as well refer to him as the play sees fit -- is the only individual bestowed with proper name. The rest of the names are obviously ludicrously comical, silly to the point of distraction. Indeed, it required a couple of scenes to enter the world of the play as it is so aggressively hyperbolic and self-aware; how many times has "scandal" been discussed? However, despite the outrageous, the play manages to be incredibly real and honest, reviewing with intense honesty and insight the ways that we interact with each other and, even more importantly, how we think when we are away from each other. And it is "we," because even though the name are insane, the comments, digs, insults are disturbingly identical to modern day stereotypical social commentary. The same conversation about women, age, and makeup is had in all of its snippiness today, in magazine and on screen; the same dialogue between husbands and wives about her overspending and his unsatisfactory appearance in today's dumb sitcoms. Much of the play's perspective is intensely modern, from the tabloid references to the societal posturing. It is really pretty disturbing that it seems so little has changed - only gotten worse, actually. Even the Jew stereotypes refuse to die.
ReplyDeleteI laughed. There was a line in the beginning that described a Mrs. Clackitt as lacking, “that delicacy of tint—and mellowness of sneer—which distinguish your Ladyship's scandal.” This line, hilarious, sets the tone for the rest of the play. We discussed the currency of wit, and in this society slander is the currency. The mind games of city life are the main theme. There is coercion, slander, hypocrisy. It is so ingrained in them that their very names, Sneerwell, Snake, Backbite, Surface…are all instances of slander in it of itself. This is what slander seems to do. It breaks people down until they are no longer nuanced, so multi-faceted characters become cartoons. In this way, each character in the play has become a parody of themselves. Sneerwell, Snake, and Slander are conflated until the hissing of gossip is all one sees when looking at this characters. Mrs. Candor does this when she talks about Charles Surface only regarding his financial straits; “His extravagance, I presume; the Town talks of nothing else.” This is the currency of the society, slander used to reduce everyone to one-dimensions
ReplyDelete